TED Conversations

Director, Celebrated Hub

This conversation is closed.

Should governments decide where the poor can live?

In Camden, London there are a group of 750 plus people that live of the state and can't afford to stay there due to new legislation which has come into force. These people can't find jobs at the moment so are reliant on the government to support them with housing costs. Due to this reliance the government has stated it will relocate this group to an area outside of London with even less chance of finding employment but lower housing costs. Surely a better way is to support these people to find sustainable employment? What do you think?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 16 2013: This is always a bad idea.

    The UK has been doing this sort idiocy since the 40's. The economy has been shrinking the entire time, which is the cause of unemployment in the first place.

    When ever rent control is introduced the housing cost is held lower than the market would dictate. Consequently people take more space than they otherwise would further exacerbating the shortage of affordable housing. At the same time the land lord has no incentive to maintain the property as it is not profitable, which creates a slum area.

    There are always unintended consequences involved with government meddling.
    • thumb
      Feb 16 2013: Could the reason that the economy is shrinking be that there is too much governmental interference in the form of taxes, regulation, and just plain busybody-ness?
      • thumb
        Feb 16 2013: No I don't think it could be the reason because it is the reason.

        The OP is just one tiny example and the UK is a huge example of what not to do especially regarding healthcare. In Calif they do an incessant amount of what you talk about which had no small part in the cost of housing rising.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.